Doom III and Parhelia?

[bobby2]

So - the real teller - and my next game purchase of taste - Doom III

Will 'id' comment on the potential of Parhelia with their engine?

I would really like to know game wise.

[SteveC]

Get me a demo and I'll give it a go

[killercheung]

I don't think it can run Doom III good with current driver because it even can't run Quake III that good.
I just think Matrox never sent a Parhelia to John Carmark, because he never mention the performance of that card.
They just said ATI next gen card R300 is the best card they can get now.

[Jazzz]

Originally posted by killercheung
I don't think it can run Doom III good with current driver because it even can't run Quake III that good.
I just think Matrox never sent a Parhelia to John Carmark, because he never mention the performance of that card.
They just said ATI next gen card R300 is the best card they can get now.

actually he has got the card but he said he can't comment on it but he did have doom3 running on it

[thop]

since the NDAs expired he will probably say sth. about it these days.

[frankymail]

I highly doubt that Parhelia will not be able to run DOOM III nicely (read: Doom 3 will probably play perfectly fine on a Parhelia, especially if you use 16xFAA agsint say a GeForce 4 Ti using Quincunx) because of it's pass requirements per pixel: 8. That's why John C. said that theorically, the Radeon 8500 would be faster that a GeForce 4 Ti, because it can apply 8 passes on one pixel in one clock cycle and the GeForce 4 Ti cannot (however, due to nVIDIA's famous software engineering team, the GeForce 4 is constantly faster). Parhelia's very deep pipelines would surely do nicely in such conditions (it can do 4 8-passes pixels per 2 clock cycles where the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 can only do 2 8-passes pixels per 2 clock cycles.) and its shaders would flex their muscles a bit more than in Quake 3 (lol)... If fact, I was expecting lower-than-Ti4200-and-even-slightly-lower-than-Radeon-8500 scores because most games don't use more than 2 passes per pixels... and because the GeForce 4 Ti and Radeon 8500 are clocked faster than Parhelia, they can pump-out more of those pixels than Parhelia can... What would be interresting to see is benchmarks running on a vanilla Parhelia and on an overclocked one to see the performance gain (which IMO should be linear with the frequency augmentation). But I think benchmarking the Parhelia using a Quake 3 demo (which was state-of-the-art 3 years ago, but is now slightly outdated, with its pretty low-res texures, simple models and light sources, childish AI and minimalistic physic engine) or 3DMark 2001SE is like testing the latest Athlon XP/Pentium 4 using an Excel worksheet... it only stresses one specific part of the GPU and leaves more advanced features/techniques undistrubed (and unused).

[Kosh Naranek]

And in theory P should perform much better.

[killercheung]

I think the argue is ended.
John Carmark did have comment on it.

I think it is not the time to think Parhelia is suitable for run Doom 3 or not - Doom 3 won't even out until next year (Q3 isn't it?)

At that time, I hope Matrox will have a better card than current Paherlia, and hope at lease it will be one of the fastest card when it is out. I think Matrox will learn from Parhelia, and I am sure they will back to the war again!

However, I will consider ATI R300 for the next card, and wait for the Next Gen Parhelia...

[CHHAS]

Considering how long it took for Parhelia to come out, I find it hard to believe that Matrox will have a new card out by next year.

[Cheesekeeper]

Perhaps they will release a version of D3 optimised for Parhelia. They can call it "Doomed".......

[Dogbert]

Cheesekeeper,

After seeing all your trolling around I can tell you this:

He who plays with fire, often gets (his poor sorry ass) burned.

You've been warned.

[Cheesekeeper]

Originally posted by Dogbert
Cheesekeeper,

After seeing all your trolling around I can tell you this:

He who plays with fire, often gets (his poor sorry ass) burned.

You've been warned.

Dogbert, evidently you haven't read that many of my posts then. I have been a major supporter of Matrox for years. Prior to the release of benchmarks, no-one was hoping more to see another killer card from Matrox.

I have been personally responsible for installing a significant number of Matrox cards in gonvernment depatments in WA. I am also the only reason that said departments continued to use the cards, after BIOS problems made them completely unusable in Microstation (and Matrox support neglected to do anything).

Yet after all this, I continued hoping that Matrox would come back and prove us right. Let's face it: the reviews have roasted the Parhelia. Everyone is a bit upset over this, and I would appreciate it if you would direct your asinie comments elsewhere.....

[Kruzin]

Let's keep it freindly.
When it starts getting personal, threads will be closed.

[Pace]

Oooh, Dogbert I must say, thats the first post I've seen that looks anything like trolling from the 'keeper, so you two lovebirds keep your handbags hidden for the moment

As for Doom III, where did JC say Parhelia wont run it well? From what I've seen, its slower than GF4Ti's - not what I hoped, but I'm still hoping it will run it well. I doubt any current card will play D3 at its maximum details comfortably, just like no cards at the time of Q3, UT, Q2 could play them easily at highest settings. But I certainly want D3 to be more than playable, and UT2 for that matter!

P.

[Novdid]

There was another thread in Matrox hardware, were someone quoted Carmack, and the tone was something like this: It will run but slower than ATI and Nvidia.

Here it is: http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34039